Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday March 26, 2010 @03:40PM
from the legs-control-treaty-soon-to-follow dept.

reporter writes "According to a report just published by the NY Times, Washington and the Kremlin have finalized an agreement on limiting nuclear weapons and related hardware. Notably, the agreement does not restrict American development of an anti-missile shield. Quoting: 'The new treaty will reduce the binding limit on deployed strategic nuclear warheads by more than one-quarter, and on launchers by half. It will reestablish an inspection and verification regime, replacing one that expired in December. But while the pact recognizes the dispute between the two countries over American plans for missile defense based in Europe, it will not restrict the United States from building such a shield. ... The specific arms reductions embedded in the new treaty amount to a continuing evolution rather than a radical shift in the nuclear postures of both countries. According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.'"

I suspect this was one of the main reasons why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The word in diplomatic circles is that this move towards nuclear disarmament originated directly from Obama himself, and not from staffers. I heard that from a very reliable source, ie. someone in diplomatic circles.

As far as we Europeans are concerned, Obama can stuff the missile shield up his ass. And while we're at it, he can stuff NATO, too.

We have no issues with Russia. We even buy them gas and oil. We have more important problems than the Russian missiles. Why the fuck should we spend money buying extremely expensive (and useless) technology to protect us from the Bogeyman or whatever?

I hope Russia turns out to be a reliable gas and oil source for Europe, free from any supply disruptions or political leveraging. Watch as the unfolding dependence of the US on China to finance debt demonstrates the folly of such arrangements.

No you're going about it all wrong.You should be saying "Health Care Reform? That's not real health care reform - it's a fraction of what Nixon tried to do." You see - you are just showing blind tribalism over something that used to be Republican policy and should be bipartisan.The other bit where you're wrong is expecting sudden change of everything when government is sloooow. Of course just about everything is going to be a continuation of Bush's policies for years.I wouldn't trust those CNN numbers ei

Most of those 744 aircraft are gone. The entire active inventory of B-52 airframes is 94 [af.mil] (see bottom of "General Characteristics" list, last line), all "H" models.

The inactive ones are extremely inactive, generally in salvageable or restorable condition in The Boneyard [wikipedia.org]. I suppose if someone has to do something to reduce an on-paper count of potentially active bombers, you would saw a bunch of the boneyard birds in pieces, like they did there for START I reductions. (Yes, when doing an arms reduction, you st

"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."

"Conclude" means "bring to an end." They might have concluded treaty negotiations, but they didn't conclude a treaty (except to the extent that this new treaty may replace an old one, which is clearly not what was meant). And concluding negotiations doesn't imply either agreement or disagreement, so the headline should probably read "US and Russia agree to arms control treaty."

This is incorrect. The headline uses the word "conclude" correctly.

"Bring to an end" is one of the many meanings of conclude. The one being used here is "to bring to a decision or settlement; settle or arrange finally: to conclude a treaty."

This use is not only correct, it is the dictionary example of this particular meaning.

For those that don't know, one ICBM or SLBM rocket can launch multiple hydrogen bombs. This is known as MIRV [wikipedia.org] (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles). Each one can be aimed at different target. Does such a system count as one warhead, or do each of the bombs count separately?

My idea of arms control is double-checked coordinates,
and officers who aren't afraid to turn their keys. They
come after superpowers with MIRVs, next thing you know
they'll be trying to take away my mutated anthrax. I need
that. For duck huntin'.

(Don't mod unless you know what sarcasm is, and have watched every episode of Futurama
at least twice).

I distinctively remember such treaties being signed in the Gorbachev era.

Sure, this is just Obama following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately he is in other respects, too, like the massive deficits that Reagan created both via sending bloated budgets to Congress and failing to veto pork in Congressional bills that crossed his desk.

I can't really see why Republicans hate Obama so much. I understood why they hated Clinton: he was a deficit fighter who actually brought Federal spending under control, leading to the kind of smaller government that Republicans hate.

Looking at US politics from overseas there really is not much difference between the mainstream of the Republicans and Democrats. You get some weird cocaine ravaged media presenters stirring up trouble on the lunatic fringe, but generally the values remain the same.It is truly bizzare however that some "Republicans" on that fringe have a strong leaning towards a monarchy and really want their President to be a King. They see any questioning of a Republican President as treason and see Obama as an usurper

China has re-started production of their launchers and warheads. The last thing that I ever want to see is Chinese military get to where they 'think' that they can win in a nuclear war. Considering that they are focused on doing offensive, not defensive, I am concerned about this.
In addition, I suspect that we will use the plutonium from the triggers to keep us from re-starting a breeder program. We desperatly need to re-design and build a new breeder. Ideally one that can be built to send to the moon. Ja

China has very limited abilities to project power. Russia currently has only the ability to project a few bombers and a couple warship a few thousand miles. On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.

Chinese military power projection is very limited, a handful of nuclear subs, most of which spend years at dock between deployments, no carriers and they lack the capability to move land forces across the Straights of Taiwan.

The US on the other hand, well, 10 nuclear carriers, 8 amphibious assault ships, dozens of bombers capable of deployment in a few hours notice, the ability to deploy paratroopers, helicopter assault forces or Marines anywhere on the planet in 2-3 days.

On land the Russians have been limited to Chechnya, Georgia and Kosovo in the last 20 years.

Are you seriously saying that a superpower is only a superpower if they go having wars around the world all the time? If my country were in a constant war with everyone all around the world and had troops deployed all the time, I would feel ashamed and a bully, not a "superpower".

I'm sure both Russia and China are capable of deploying all around the world in a few days. Just because they don't usually do that but are a peace-loving countries, doesn't mean they cant.

"A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."

Russia no longer has a leading position, its in the G8 sure and on UNSC, but it is failing. China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.

They can not however project power. China and Russia lack sealift and airlift.

China can't get forces to Taiwan, they sure couldn't get PLA forces to San Diego if they wanted to. On the other hand the US could get Marines to Hong Kong in a few days.

China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.

- so you think that China has a bubble economy then? The country where most of the worlds manufacturing capacity is concentrated? The country that is actively buying assets in forms of commodities, lands, mines, all over the world? Country with the fastest growing consumer population?

China is in a leading position, but not in the G8 but has UNSC seat, economic power sure, but with problems just like or worse than the US has, but its bubble hasn't burst.

- so you think that China has a bubble economy then?

It's a currency bubble; the Chinese government is keeping the yuan artificially low vs. the dollar. Plus they're building bogus [benzinga.com] empty cities in the desert [marketoracle.co.uk] to prop up their GDP.

They don't have a "bubble", they have something drastically opposite. The thing that most articles fail to note, that Chinese actually save money rather than spend money. So if that inverse-bubble inflates, they end up richer and would buy up more stuff.

They can not however project power. China and Russia lack sealift and airlift.

The projection of military power is not just about Carriers and assault ships. More important then the hardware is the logistics and training. Russia has this, China does not, thus Russia is still able to project power especially in their sphere of influence (Central Asia and Eastern Europe). Russia's army can be moved, fed and replenished far from Russian borders, China's army however is not trained nor equipped to operate outs

That's a really backwards statement. 'It may not be wonderful what they do' = Pointlessly killing and dying in places like Iraq and El Salvador.

It's a correct statement. I don't care whether you think it backwards or not. And as far as I know, the US military hasn't been in El Salvador except possibly as trainers.

Obviously we should have a military able and capable of defense, but the idea (implied in your statement) that the only way to do this is to accept the 'collateral damage' and the deaths of our own soldiers in 'low level conflicts' (a vague term, which could cover humanitarian interventions or the invasion or Iraq, which was not so low level!) is obscene. There's also a disturbing eagerness, almost a desire, in your post for the next 'high level conflict.'

Then don't accept it. Sure, the invasion of Iraq was not "low level" with massive, intense fighting. The occupation of Iraq was low level. Even the Fallujah fighting was on the order of a few thousand insurgents. My supposed "eagerness" for war is solely in your perception. I don't look forward to conflict.

You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.

In modern warfare, numbers aren't that important anymore. It's all about force multipliers. The United States may have a (comparable) small military, true, but even the lowliest of their grunts is a highly trained and well equipped specialist. Just look at the last few wars the US has fought in (and I mean *actual* wars, not peacekeeping/stabilizing which involves fighting guerillas) - every time, relatively few US troops have inflicted major casualties with minor losses.

Well, I do think that also has a lot to do with the USA being the one declaring war and thus setting the day and time of the first strike. I just can't see any country bomb the hell out of China before invading without getting hurt on their soil. For example in 1990 and the latest Iraq war, the USA used bombers to take out all the important infrastructure. After that it's just mobbing up what's still waiving with weapons.
But I do agree that numbers aren't everything and that a relative small force of well-

It should be worth noting that China will not go to war with the US, and that the US will not got to war with China. I mean, these are among the largest nations on earth. We already saw what happened during the Cold War where US and Russia were at each others throat. Talk about a dicey situation! I think (or hope) that the great titan nations have learned to never fight each other. Such a war would lead to a tit-for-tat situation for generations that would dwarf what's happening between Israel and Palestine

Bullshit. Recent adventures around the world have shown that US troops are not as well-trained s they could be, and in fact that the US military relies on equipment more than training, preferring to throw money at a problem rather than time and effort. The US soldier of old might have been something special, but these days they most certainly are not.

Pretty well afaict, afaict there are far more enemies dying than there are people dying on our side.

The real problem in iraq was not winning the war itself, it's dealing with the mess left behind afterwards. That costs more lives than many of us westerners are willing to stomach for a war we see as having little direct affect on us (but still not very many compared to other wars).

You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.

There is a huge misconception about the size of China's military. Something like 30% are old women and children. Literally. Furthermore, over half quarters are are simply factory workers who wear uniforms. Yes, those guys who make goods in factories. That means, realistically, something like an effective fighting force, versus a real military, of only 4000,000 - 500,000 or so. Not to mention, all of China's real talent has typically been Russian.

Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China

Is it really that big of an issue though these days? Wouldn't sending in drop shipments or using captured enemy weapons/ammo suffice in a time of need? Or is the limitation troop location and training of foreign weaponry?

Yes. You don't transport ammunition with airplanes, you transport it with ships.

Wouldn't sending in drop shipments or using captured enemy weapons/ammo suffice in a time of need?

No. Ammunition is HEAVY. A single artillery shell is around 100 pounds. Now imagine you have a battery of 8 guns, firing 2 rounds a minute. That's around 1 ton of ammunition a minute. Now, mortar shells are lighter, (3-5 pounds), but you have many more mortars than artil

You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.

So China has a 4:1 man advantage. In the second opium war, China had a 10:1 man advantage over France and Britain, and still lost hopelessly. Don't underestimate the effect of technology and experience. China has millions of troops who have never seen a war and an organisation which has never b

The question is how long will this advantage last? China seems on track to beat US GDP in twenty years. At that point, even if GDP per capita is lower than in the US, China will have the economic advantage. They can then play catch up on terms advantageous to themselves rather than merely deploy modest counters to US power.

Do you think US + Allies would just sit around twiddling their thumbs while China built up arms and took strategic positions around the globe? Why do you think the US tries to maintain military superiority...just for show but without any force behind the threat? The US has already invaded and dominated one neighbour of China in the past decade on the flimsiest of pretenses (Afghanistan) and has bombed parts of another (Pakistan), and has more than once threatened to invade one of China's few allies (North

Do you think US + Allies would just sit around twiddling their thumbs while China built up arms and took strategic positions around the globe?

Yes. Because it is already happening to a limited extent.

But it's not like that. Markets are open to the Chinese and they are becoming more prosperous for it, and with this prosperity, they don't want to go to war with the US. So they are not trying to become militarily dominant so as to provoke the US.

Just because there's no military value for China to start and lose a near future arms race, doesn't mean that conditions won't change. My take is that in twenty years, they will change.

Nice! So ICBM's don't count as power projection?
And the other thing. Even in the soviet days USSR had no strategy on projecting massive forces anywhere in the world. US on the other hand has basically troops in every region. And US is the only country to have such a wide network of foreign bases. And people in the US wonder where do people get their hatred of US from?
Sure, there are places where such bases are logical and beneficial, but there are a lot more that are remnants of the cold war.

A South Korean naval ship sank near the disputed maritime border with North Korea early Saturday, prompting the South's military to rush vessels to the site to rescue its sailors and raising fears of an attack by the North.

Earlier Friday, North Korea's military threatened "unpredictable strikes," including a nuclear attack, in anger over a report that South Korea and the U.S. were preparing for possible instability in the totalitarian country.

After the ship began sinking, President Lee Myung-bak convened an emergency meeting of security-related ministers, including the defense minister and other top military officials.

Yonhap reported earlier that a South Korean ship fired shots toward an unidentified target in the direction of North Korea, raising fears of an exchange of gunfire.

The Chinese already know that Russia is a more likely threat to them than the US.

North Korea is a threat mainly to themselves and occasionally to the South Koreans. North Korea is unable to mount an attack that would go much further than a few miles past their borders, they just plain do not have the logistics necessary.

(1)North Korea has a huge army. They might not have resources but, because of the size of their army, even on foot with nothing but rifles, they could cause significant trouble for a while. (2)Seoul, South Korea's capital city, is within artillery range of North Korea... N. Korea could sit on their side of the border and lob shells, again doing considerable damage before, Yes, we would stop it; but, they have a significant amount of firepower parked there, waiting. (3) South Korea is a significant finan

They can damage South Korea, but they are not set up in a way that they could effect a war beyond the range that their current artillery is stationed.

North Korea is a one trick pony and we know what that trick will be if they ever decide to play it. They will not play it.

North Koreans are taught that the rest of the world has it worse than them, that dear leader has their best intentions at heart. The moment that the North Koreans were to reach Seoul the North would lose those soldiers. North Korea would

Kim Jung Il maybe a megalomaniac, but the idea that he can do everything that crosses his mind is wrong. Lose the support of the top ranked officers of the army and his opinion will be irrelevant (or he'll stop having one at all).

Even a dictator relies on a chain of command, and can't do anything if it breaks.

Are you honestly willing to assume that their warheads are now all duds? Regardless of any political or environmental views or feelings, it seems naive to assume that all those weapons out there "probably wouldn't even go foom."

1. Like every country in the world, they're a Competitor for resources. The fact that they have warheads would be enough to consider them a threat to any US interest. They don't necessarily have to launch Nukes into US soil in order to make a point.

2. Their financial situation is all the more reason to be wary of a Country. I'm not anti-Russian, but they do have weapons of mass destruction. If the wrong people were in charge, and if desperate they could threaten attacks to get resources. Similar to number o

This is actually very important. Most of us here (me included) are too young to remember. But our parents generation lived in fear of a nuclear war. Tensions were very high and the nuclear build up was huge. Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.

Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.

Well...that statement is a bit questionable.

The sad part of it is (although it's also the reality part) is that as our nuclear arsenal is drawn down, we're more vulnerable. It's an unavoidable thing. Furthermore, there's the fact that a "nuclear free world" would be more vulnerable to all kinds of atrocities like those that occurred during WWII.

So, it's best to realize that nuclear weapons are the most powerful force for actual peace, ever. Have a nice day. =)

On note from the article, I don't really see how that is that important. Yes there are less Nukes, but there are still more than enough to destroy the world a few times over. It just seems like a waste of air negotiating.

There's never been enough nuclear weapons to "destroy" the world a few times over. And the huge reductions in the nuclear arsenal greatly reduces the maximum damage from a short term nuclear war. This especially includes secondary effects like fallout and nuclear winter which are more likely to harm third parties.

Nuclear weapons are extraordinarily destructive, but even that can be greatly exaggerated. For example, in the movie, Resident Evil: Apocalypse [imdb.com], a cruise missile with a five kiloton warhead wipe

Pay more attention to Russia: They've found the resources they need to raise all the capital they need to maintain their military at any level they choose. They've discovered they have petroleum riches comparable to the middle east... I'd argue that their nuclear industry is in better shape than that in the United States. They also (still) have a fairly robust manufacturing capacity, which they're leveraging on the global market. Their space industry rivals, and in some ways exceeds, the technological capability of both the United States and European Union. But, your first point is correct, we're not really enemies any more.

Maybe you haven't looked the labels on nuclear power plants, labels on your gas, labels on your software, etc. Consumer electronics and clothes come from those countries you mentioned, but Russia is not greatly involved in that.

Found resources by drilling more oil? Gee that was hard, anyhow Russian military is a joke -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7837342.stm [bbc.co.uk]. Everything that is still valuable, like the nuclear industry, was built in Soviet time, and hasn't yet completely fallen in disarray, this applies to the space agency as well; for comparison the budget of NASA for 2009 is 17 Billion, Roscosmos 2.4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Federal_Space_Agenc [wikipedia.org]

Congradulations, you have managed to be wrong in pretty much all you points.1. Russia does not have resources to maintain their military on functional level. The current doctrine is to rely on nukes as much as possible since everything else is in disrepair. In fact, they are cutting close to 30% of staff because of lack of money. Oil money go to Putin's private coffers so not much left for anything else.2. Their nuclear industry is in disrepair and barely hanging on the guys who are going to retire in the n

Everything on you list is wrong, seriously it is not even funny for a troll. In was going to write a nice rebuttal, but then realized it's not possible to get every point so wrong, either from ignorance or by accident.

We negotiate treaties with non-enemies regularly, holding treaties with the UK, Canada, and Mexico. It isn't always meant to solve disputes, but in some cases to head them off before they can become a problem.

We all understand what is going on here, The Won is on record saying the US should be nuke free (stupid!) and is using the Russians as an excuse to go in a direction he already wants to go.

This is actually another example of Obama's bipartisan agenda. He is after all following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan on this issue, so I assume we'll be hearing soon from Republicans everywhere about what a great day for America this is.

"Dear Mr. Kim. Upon receipt of your delivery in either South Korea or Japan, we would be happy to demonstrate, for you, state of the art methods in manufacturing these weapons. Just pick up the phone and place your order, and we will deliver a demonstration model to your home via express shipment...."

No matter how much the US and Russia limit their stockpiles of this and that, we'll still both be able to blow the world up a few times over,

Nonsense. The reductions in nuclear arms would greatly reduce the damage from a full out nuclear war, not only to the participants, but also to third parties. Things like fallout and nuclear winter effects are greatly reduced. Population centers are also less likely to be targeted and more such places are likely to survive.

Not relevant. The laws of physics didn't change just because of a temporary shift in geopolitics. These nuclear weapons are still ready to be fired on a moment's notice. There's no reason to expect that we won't see future nuclear wars, perhaps from causes that don't even exist yet.

Girl: "Animals are better than people, they don't have war."Death: "What the hell are you talking about, animals fight all the time!"Girl: "Not with nuclear arms. You can't hug children with nuclear arms."Death then reaches over and touches (killing) her.

It's partly, at least, a realization on the part of the Russians that much of their arsenal isn't functional. They don't have the money to bring everything back to working order, so why not take the missiles that are rusting in place and trade them away in an arms control agreement.

They'll still have a more than credible deterrent with just the newer rockets like Topol-M, and this deal will free up desperately needed money for new submarines.

If you mean removal of missile bases, then keep in mind that popular opinion in those countries was always against having them. It's the local governments that were used to sucking Bush's ass that wanted them, not people.